Climate Consensus: A Cautionary Tale

My wife got Final Cut Express for Christmas, so I decided to do a video project to force myself to learn how to use it. The result is a 2-part, ~22 minute video called “Climate Consensus: A Cautionary Tale”. In this video, I tackled the following questions.

What does it mean to have a scientific consensus?

Is there a strong scientific consensus about whether humans are significantly affecting the climate?

Responses

Thanks, Amoeba. And your icon is stunning! The masterful color scheme! The clever juxtaposition of the pink waffle, stacked monkeys, and jester hat! It’s a good thing that nobody has a similar logo, or they might sue you for trademark infringement.

Here are some lists of scientists who actively believe that there is no or insufficient evidence to support the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming” hypothesis. Note that the list is considerably larger than that of the IPCC contributors.

Since you listed petitionproject.org, it is painfully obvious that you didn’t actually watch my video. If you want to have a real conversation about the issue at hand, please do me the courtesy of responding to what I already said.

For you to claim it is a spoof, is like me claiming the the IPCC contributors are fakes. And from what I have read that some are still published even though the scientist in question has requested their removal.

Well you could have visited my blog, where after the well deserved political lampooning of a number of key figures, I point out facts that disprove the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis.
Therefore also pointing out that you don’t have to be a climate scientist in order to make up your own mind.
I don’t suppose you know much about economics either, but if you could analyse the cost of the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands to us all personally, you might be looking for more definitive proof of AGW.
Incidently economics is my thing, and if Nicholas Stern is one of your so called “experts”, his “report” is so bad that an economics freshman would choke on it. His report makes anyone wary of the official line on AGW actually.
Considering that the IPCC is going to cost each of us very dearly, if it has its way, if you want to convince any reasonable person that AGW is likely, you had better come up with some good empirical evidence.
If you have any I would be most interested.

The Petition Project was part funded by the Marshall Institute, which was in-turn funded by ExxonMobil.

There have been a number of variants of the ‘Review’ with different authors. The first version had Robinson, A; Baliunas; Soon; Robinson, Z. None of whom are climate scientists.

And it showed. There were some basic blunders, but also clear deceptions.

No mention of the shifting carbon isotopic ratio that proved the source of the excess atmospheric CO2.
Note: They know about isotopes (oxygen), when it suited them!

It was formatted the replicate a National Academies of Sciences reprint, which would have been peer-reviewed, but it wasn’t, it was promoted by Fred Seitz a former NAS president, which almost certainly fooled some.http://tinyurl.com/Seitz-Dishonesty

The Petition Project was put together by OISM, a denialist k00khaus whose other products include repackaged free government CD material sold as nuclear survival manuals.

It was a mailing specifically designed to appear as if it came from the National Academy of Sciences, in an effort to fool the reader. Indignant stories from scientists treated like dupes in this manner abound.

The claims of the Petition itself are a load of bollocks.

The signatories, last I heard, included Mickey Mouse. Apparently no serious effort has been expended by OISM at cleanup, and most of the signatories have no climate experience or are not scientists at all.

That’s very interesting, Roger. It seems that you are saying that since you don’t WANT to believe AGW is going to be a problem, you demand more stringent proof for it. And not just enough proof to convince experts–it has to be enough to convince YOU. Sorry, the rest of us don’t have time to wait around while you get up to speed.

I mean, the sum total of your evidence that GLOBAL average temperature was warmer than the present in the Medieval Warm Period is that it appears to have been warmer in a couple places. Meanwhile, good scientists are being accused of fraud for painstakingly cataloguing proxy temperature records from all over the globe, because it’s sooooo obvious to people like you (meaning “people with no scientific background, whatsoever) that some farm in Greenland means the whole globe was uniformly warmer.

You’re a poster boy for my video–you should really look at the second half, because if you’re honest you’ll recognize yourself.

I’m curious, though. What, exactly, did you find so lacking in the first half of the video?

Well you obviously did not spend much time reading my blog because had you looked on the links at the right, you would have seen a number of sources, including a number of scientific papers, which point to evidence that the MWP shows up in proxies in a good many parts of the world including Antarctica and New Zealand.

What was lacking in your video?
You did not discuss the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis and other hypothesis’ which also fit the current observations.
Neither did you show why scientists prefer the CO2 causation in spite of factors that disprove it.
Neither do you attempt to offer any empirical evidence for the above hypothesis.
Finally, I doubt whether you have considered the human and economic cost if we should follow the IPCC CO2 emission demands.

Ah, I see. My video was about the issue of scientific consensus, but you think it should have been about something else.

Well, tough. If you actually want answers to those questions, go to Skeptical Science or RealClimate. They’ve been dealt with many times.

And it may surprise you to learn that I am a Republican who doesn’t particularly like the idea of cap and trade. I do try to consider human and economic costs, but I don’t consider any of that license to distort the science.

For example, you clearly don’t mind distorting the science by transmogrifying a few local records into conclusions about global averages. Instead of pointing to local records, why not point to a study where someone actually combined a large number of proxy records from all around the globe to construct global averages? Oh, wait. Several groups of scientists have done that, and they all come out looking like hockey sticks.

I have spent the last year examining the AGW evidence very closely including the the websites you mention.

I am not distorting anything, the nearest thing to evidence that I have found is a loose correlation between global temperature and CO2 concentrations.
I don’t know if you ever studied statistics but every freshman knows that correlation is not proof of anything.
There are a number of scientific models which appear to be relevant until you examine them and find that they all assume the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, which strangely enough is what they are trying to support.

This is why you do not need to be a climate scientist to see the scientific shortcomings of AGW.

I would have though, that if you had considered the actual science yourself and understood the logic of it, you would be discussing it with me right now.

So I suggest instead of believing what you are being told by politicians etc, you should sit back and look for some facts among the garbage AND MAKE UP YOUR OWN MIND.

I have looked at much of the evidence, and unlike you, I have a PhD in geochemistry. Does that make me an expert in climate? No, but I have enough expertise to recognize for what it is much of the complete garbage that non-experts try to pass off as science in this area. That includes the stuff you are pushing on your website.

Again, you are a poster boy for the points I made in the video. You think you are being the hardheaded iconoclast by deciding you don’t need any experts and evaluating all the evidence yourself. The trouble is that you don’t appear to have the background to evaluate the evidence yourself, and so you end up being manipulated by crackpots.

Please explain:
‘There are a number of scientific models which appear to be relevant until you examine them and find that they all assume the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis,’

AFAIUI this is NOT the case. You have things backwards. The radiative properties of CO2 and water vapour are well understood and were described over 150 years ago. There is essentially no debate about this aspect of climate science.

My understanding is that climate models, are not terribly different from models used in other scientific disciplines, except they are far more complex because of chaos and the amount of data.
Essentially, models incorporate the best known science, such as numerous physical constants, the radiative properties of gases and equations, lapse rates & etc. But when forecasts are made that involves assumptions about human behaviour which are clearly not part of the climate system.

There is no inherent AGW assumption that shapes the models. If there is: PROVE IT!

Great videos, Barry. I esp liked the framing of consensus and how it actually is an essential part of science. That is an important point that is often overseen or outright rejected (even by scientists themselves).

I think the effect of the videos could be enlarged by condensing it to just include the consensus parts (what does it mean; is there a consensus; choices; counter strategies) and leave the petition project and Monckton parts to separate videos (they are long and detailed enough to stand on their own).

All I can say is that you are keeping away from any actual facts concerning the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis which is the root of all this.
If you want to impress me, try coming up with some support of the above that is more than just a vague correlation of some data sets.
I will be impressed if I see you using your own mind in this instead of parroting what you choose to read and have been told.
Would you believe I have an open mind in this, but I deal in realities not posturing.

That CO2 causes warming is just basic physics. How much warming is a stickier question. Since you are the sort of person who is willing to pontificate about a technical subject without even understanding something as basic as that, I’m not particularly interested in impressing you. But if you want to see more analysis of scientific arguments, look at some of my earlier posts and quit trying to change the subject of this particular post.

Barry as far as I can tell I am addressing your questions reasonable and unlike you not needing to resort to ad homenum attacks.

If you think demontrating the greenhouse properties of CO2 in a laboratory proves in any way that it will effect the atmosphere in the same way, all I can say is that you need to think again.

Once again you have not volunteered any reasonable argument from your own mind.
Why dont you check out some of these peer reviewed papers, maybe they will help.
Better than that skeptical science website you keep mentioning.

Plenty more where these come from actually. If you want to explore a particular part of AGW let me know and I will choose a few for you.
You will need to pay your own library fees though.

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? (PDF)
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology, Volume 50, Number 2, pp. 297-327, June 2002)
– C. R. de Freitas

If those are your very first attempts at producing videos, I am very, very impressed.

I’m a great fan of Crock of the Week and Fool Me Once. If you decided to repeat and expand this exercise, you’d be a great addition to these.

Just the occasional item on stuff that interests you will be fine too. (Though I’d much prefer it if everyone in the world did what I wanted, when I wanted – I’ll settle for whatever good things come my way.)

My absolute favorites, however, are the massive number of your references that were published in Energy and Environment, that bottom-tier joke that exists only to publish climate contrarian literature, and the one from the Journal of Scientific Exploration. Yes, that’s the journal that publishes such groundbreaking bombshells as “An Empirical Study of Some Astrological Factors in Relation to Dog Behavior”. I’m not joking–here’s the URL:

Also, some of your “peer-reviewed” pieces seem to be commentaries in various trade journals like Chemical Engineering Progress.

So keep ’em coming, Roger. With your constant attempts to change the subject, you actually keep providing excellent illustrations of the points I made in my video. In this case, you show that you suffer from “Oregon Petition Syndrome,” in that you will accept ANYTHING as peer-reviewed science, even if it’s printed in a journal that publishes about dog astrology.

Barry,
Needless to say, neither me nor my readers have seen anything from you that supports your belief in AGW.
Instead of explaining the reasons for your belief, and that does not include phrases such as “the IPCC-scientists etc… say so” you have simply resorted to ad homenum attacks and a lot of bluster.
I believe that either you do not understand the key issues about the deficiencies of AGW theory and therefore have accepted it in faith, or you do understand, have no facts to counter these deficiencies but do not wish to be shown as being wrong or possibly you have some reason for wanting to decieve those around you.

If you wish to remedy this, you can supply us with some proper empirical evidence of the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis or hold your peace.

I repeat–this blog post is about whether there is a scientific consensus about anthropogenic climate change, and how people get around it.

If you are really serious that you’ve examined the pieces at RealClimate and Skeptical Science, and still don’t find any evidence for the claims of mainstream climate science, then I’m certainly not going to bang my head against a wall trying to convince you.

What chance would I have? You think that the Oregon Petition (signed by all kinds of urine sample lab technicians, veterinarians, nuclear engineers, and so on,) is a legitimate place to look for scientific consensus about climate science. Your idea of peer-reviewed literature about climate science that everyone should pay attention to includes a paper from a journal that promotes dog astrology.

Honestly, if you’re willing to reject what the vast majority of actual climate scientists say in favor of the dog astrology crew, then I’m willing not to bother arguing with you about it. If it ever turns out that anyone important starts paying attention to you (like some do to Lord Monckton,) then maybe I’ll take the time to argue against you.

Really. I would. Just check out some of my earlier posts that take apart some of Monckton’s arguments. The post called “The Monckton Files: We are the World” might be especially interesting to you, because it addresses some arguments that are very similar to the ones you use to argue that the MWP was warmer than today.

For now, however, I’m not going to bother arguing endlessly with some guy who shows up on my blog comments, commenting before he’s even looked at what I posted, announcing there’s no evidence for what almost all climate scientists think about climate, dumping a list of dozens of academic (???) papers, many of which come from (ahem) extremely suspect sources, and demanding that **I** convince him where the climate scientists couldn’t.

I’m a layman when it comes to climate science, but when I decided it was time to become informed, I started with authoritative sources. I listened to Michael McElroy’s Harvard lectures, I read the material on websites like the NOAA, Scripps, U of Colorado, NSAIDC, Goddard etc. I didn’t preoccupy myself initially with outcomes, actions, politics or anything but the scientific background. I only followed up with contrarian arguments after I had some initial grasp of the mechanics.

I started to concern myself with politics and plans of action after I knew that something had to be done.

I think too many people think that the real ‘skinny’ always has to come from some trailer-court guru that feels in danger of being executed by a secret government agency.

Reading Roger’s posts reveals his real motivation. CO2 mustn’t be the cause of warming because he believes if “… you could analyse the cost of the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands to us all personally, you might be looking for more definitive proof of AGW.”

Others believe AGW can’t be true because Al Gore is a democrat, or they think that someone will make them drive an electric car!

“Reading Roger’s posts reveals his real motivation. CO2 mustn’t be the cause of warming because he believes if “… you could analyse the cost of the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands to us all personally, you might be looking for more definitive proof of AGW.”

Wow talk about distorting my statements.
Yes I did say “If you could analyse the cost of the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands to us all personally, you might be looking for more definitive proof of AGW”. And I might add that if you had any idea what it is going to cost you you would be looking more closely as well.

However, he reason I think the “Anthropogenic CO2 cause Global Warming” hypothesis is extremely unlikely is because I have yet to see any definitive evidence that supports it.

If you are unable to think for yourself on this matter, well, did you ever read George Orwells “Animal Farm” when you were at high school?
Think “baaaa”

Roger: “… And I might add that if you had any idea what it is going to cost you you would be looking more closely as well”

Absolute nonsense. The cost of a solution in no way affects the cause of a problem.

You in fact confirmed what I said previously that you allow your fear of the cost of solutions to drive your grasp of the causes. You also have to throw in the “big brother/groupthink” snipe to somehow show that anyone who actually studies the authoritative sources and comes to the same conclusions as the majority must have gone round the bend.

DL Harmon,
At the risk of this being misconstrued ad an ad homenum attack, I have to say that what you are writing is not making a lot of sense.

I will state for the last time that the cost of CO2 emission reductions is a good reason to require a good rigorous look at the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis and that would include coming up with so empirical evidence and data.

I do not, and I state again, say that the cost has anything to do with the facts of causation.

It is true however that if the unproven “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis had no consequences either way for us, I would be treating it as the theory of evolution or techtonic plate theory, which will never effect us personally one way or the other, and therefore I would be 100% tolerant.

How much do you think the IPCC co2 emission reductions (at about 57% of todays emissions) and wealth transfers are going to cost us each personally?

Cheers

Roger

PS you obviously did not read Animal Farm at any stage in your education. Big Brother was in Orwell’s other book “1984”.

Isn’t groupthink an element of the seven laws in animal farm? I’ve read them both.

You don’t believe tectonic plates effect us personally? You realize that tectonics are key to the recycling of carbon. Without tectonics we would all have died eons ago. Sounds like you need some remedial carbon-cycle study.

When you speak of “…wealth transfers” and how much it will cost us personally do you consider that there is already an incumbent who is receiving the wealth from the burning of fossil fuels?

The money for oil, natural gas and coal is already being received by wealthy energy companies. Many of those companies are also totalitarian governments who have little interest in you other than receiving your money when you fuel up at the pump. They are at the root of a concerted campaign to convince you that there is no harm in burning gasoline.

What does is matter how much it will “… cost us each personally” if you are dead? The reality of the truth of the real science of AGW which is based on actual data, both current and ancient, and supported by multiple lines of evidence is that people are going to suffer and die. You’re just kidding yourself if you think that the Heartland Institute crowd know what they’re talking about.

Roger, if you’re looking to demonstrate logic and continuity, have a quick look through your references again.

What you need is a paper that demonstrates that CO2 molecules behave differently depending on where they are. That is, CO2 lasers operate on the basis that the CO2 molecules that happen to be in the laser work on a particular feature of the physics of CO2. You need to find an experiment, a result, a theory of physics, anything at all that shows conclusively that CO2 molecules display different physical properties if they happen to be in the atmosphere or in other circumstances, in my example, lasers.

Having done that, you then need to find a followup paper demonstrating what other forcing is operating in the climate, the oceans, whatever to produce the amount and the rate of warming that we are currently measuring.

A very well put together video that does a fine job of laying out a case against Monckton and those that would argue against a scientific consensus on global climate change. I’ll be forwarding this along to others.

Many of the authors of those papers you cite in reference of your beliefs are long-term recipients of fossil-fuel money. That is they get paid to publish pseudo-science by vested interests. Some of these individuals lied about Tobacco and Cancer, now they’re lying about CO2 and climate change. Not only is their ‘science’ garbage, it’s dishonest garbage.

You would do well to refrain from attacking the authors of these papers just because they do not agree with your faith.

The truth is thay are perfectly good peer reviewed scientific papers with at least equal authority to those used by the IPCC. I would suggest more authority and independence.
Perhaps you should look to the content before you do any blanket criticism of the authors, papers and their work.

Most of those sources look perfectly respectable to me.

Did you actually read any of the papers that disagree with any of your pet theories?
Did you actually read any of the papers that agree with what you believe?

Of course the answer to both of the above is no.

Perhaps if the IPCC was honest, they would have a section on the economic costs of meeting their CO2 emission reductions, but I notice that is conspicuous by its absence.

I suggest you abandon your religion. Faith will not save the world incidently, and look to some real facts.

Well, I’ll look at one, this will provide a test of your ‘perfectly good peer reviewed scientific papers with at least equal authority to those used by the IPCC’, together with a test of the peer-review process of the journal that published it.

Patrick J. Michaels had trumpeted this:
“After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever, Canadian Ross McKitrick and another of us (Michaels) published a paper searching for “economic” signals in the temperature record. McKitrick, an economist, was initially piqued by what several climatologists had noted as a curiosity in both the U.N. and satellite records: statistically speaking, the greater the GDP of a nation, the more it warms. The research showed that somewhere around one-half of the warming in the U.N. surface record was explained by economic factors, which can be changes in land use, quality of instrumentation, or upkeep of records.”

Except, when I went to download it, there is an erratum notice, which I read:

‘The formula for computing cosine of
absolute latitude (COSABLAT) takes the angle in radians, but our data were entered in degrees.

FYI, a radian is 360/2π degrees or ~ 57.3°, so this isn’t a trivial error. It’s like thinking the cost of a house or a boat is £100,000, when in reality it costs £5,729,578!

Now a quick google shows that this paper has numerous problems that make it pretty worthless.

Benestad (2004) points out, Michaels & McKitrick failed to account for “spatial correlation” which renders their results to be statistically insignificant. Doesn’t say much for the peer-review process at CR either!

Do you really expect me to take this paper seriously? Especially when the authors claimed: ‘….the original discussions as worded in our paper need only minor modification, and our overall conclusion, re-stated here, is unaffected….’!

I remain sceptical.

The fact that the peer-review process of Climate Research was already considered deeply suspect, leads me to the conclusion that this paper isn’t worth the paper it’s written on, even when it’s virtual paper.

Michaels’ words: “After four years of one of the most rigorous peer reviews ever….”
What sweet irony!

Say what you like, the point is that this is peer reviewed, published science. Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.

So like you, we look at the content and find things we dont agree with, omissions, eroneous conclusions and downright lies.
Some good examples are the papers we label as Himalaya gate, (Chapter 13 of the IPCC Working Group II report AR4)(Source WWF) and Amazon Gate (Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 2007) (source WWF Again! and a Green Activist) , sealevel gate where the IPCC claimed more than half of the Netherlands was currently below sea level.
And the IPCC I understand got a Nobel Prize for the report that contained these bloopers.
In my country we find the same disease. “Scientific” adjustments to our national temperatures which result in severe warming, except when challenged (in parliament) over the rational of the adjustments (the raw data shows no warming) they are unable to produce any papers explaining the methodology of the adjustments. http://www.youtube.com/user/inthehousenz#p/u/2/Roku_QeiE3s

An example, of which I have the expertise to objectively criticise, is Nicholas Stern’s report which frankly would get a resounding fail at freshman level.
In other words do you wonder why rational people are describing things as alarmist?

So looking at the content is good. Why dont you spend a bit of time looking at both sides and making up your own mind on whatever FACTS emerge.

However, in my mind, the most important issues are found in the omissions made by the IPCC and other commentators.
1) Where is the empirical study that proves the “anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW arguments rest? Instead we are bombarded with often questionable data and correlations of which the weak minded among us consider proof.
2) Where abouts in the IPCC reports are the economic and social costs of attaining the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands and wealth transfers? This is a very important issue so why is it ignored?

So Amoeba my friend. Try looking for facts and omissions and do not believe anyone and best of all use your own head.

1. If he can find ANY papers that go against the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists, then he is justified in saying that the consensus has been disproven. After all, the papers he listed are “Exactly of similar calibre that the IPCC and its supporters use.”

2. But Roger doesn’t seem to realize what “peer reviewed” literature is. A commentary on global warming in an electrical engineering trade publication, and many of the other publications he listed, isn’t typically going to be “peer reviewed” by anyone with expertise in climate. It’s just an opinion piece by someone with a broad scientific background, but no specific expertise in climate. Furthermore, if a paper on climate science is published in a journal like “The Journal of Scientific Exploration,” it probably isn’t going to be peer reviewed in the normal sense, either, because real climate scientists wouldn’t bother peer reviewing for some weird journal that publishes on everything from climate to dog astrology. Dog. Astrology.

3. And of course, if it’s going to be expensive to deal with climate change, that means we should be more skeptical about whether there’s even a problem to deal with. In other words, Roger thinks that if we really, really don’t want for humans to be significantly affecting climate, they won’t! Or at least, if enough people don’t want to have to deal with a hard problem, it will go away by itself.

4. So since he doesn’t WANT there to be a problem, he goes shopping for mistakes by people who maintain the consensus. The Himalayas one is an actual mistake, of course, which is why the IPCC people checked into and admitted the error. (Since the IPCC is composed of people who have biases and make mistakes, that can happen. Thank goodness some people have the integrity to admit their mistakes, unlike certain others who cite literature they haven’t even read, that turns out to be from a dog astrology journal. Dog. Astrology.) The others are more complicated. I heard a piece on NPR about the sea level business, and it turns out that it depends on how you define sea level. Is it the average? Or is it the high water mark? They said the IPCC statement was correct if you use the high water mark, and I think there’s a good argument to be made for using that instead of the average. Most people wouldn’t be satisfied with having their house above water most of the time. As for “Amazon-gate,” there was a problem with that in the IPCC report, but it was much more minor than how the critics and media painted it. Check out this piece from one of the scientists often quoted at websites like Roger’s about “Amazon-gate”.

5. And finally, after demonstrating that he doesn’t know what peer reviewed literature is, and that he opposes mainstream climate science because he doesn’t want to have to pay for a remedy to climate change, and that he doesn’t keep up with what the opposing side says when there is a “scandal,” Roger goes on to adjure his readers to be more objective! Yes! After all, ” Where is the empirical study that proves the ‘anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming’ hypothesis upon which the whole of AGW arguments rest? Instead we are bombarded with often questionable data and correlations of which the weak minded among us consider proof.” Hmmmm. I dunno–maybe he could look in Ch. 9 of the working group 1 report, titled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change.” Here’s the link:

Amazingly, it’s quite a bit more sophisticated than a few weak correlations. Imagine that.

But of course, Roger might come back and say that none of the studies cited in that chapter ABSOLUTELY PROVES humans affect climate. And remember, if we don’t want there to be a problem, we can make it go away by insisting on ABSOLUTE PROOF, which is impossible to obtain in science! Presto!

Hey, wait! What about Roger’s other question? “Where abouts in the IPCC reports are the economic and social costs of attaining the IPCC CO2 emission reduction demands and wealth transfers? This is a very important issue so why is it ignored?” Gee, that’s a good question. Maybe you should look in THE ENTIRE WORKING GROUP 3 VOLUME of the IPCC report. Here’s the URL;

Now, Roger, since I’m getting bored with this conversation, I’ll allow you one more post to reply, and then I’m not going to post any more of your comments. I’m sure you will be gratified to be banned from yet another climate blog. If you want, I’ll even design a special award logo for you!

I have read that very carefully, and it supports exactly as I said, the IPCC does not tackle the issue of the economic cost of their CO2 emission reduction demands at all. All that is in the above link which you have not aparrently read is a lot of waffle and scenarios with some references to rediculously small GDP percentages. The issue like I said is not tackled at all reasonably and is as about as informative as the book of Ezekiel.

Try reading it yourself and see if it deals with any expected price rise in energy-specifically oil based products which we all depend on so much.

Amazingly, it’s quite a bit more sophisticated than a few weak correlations. Imagine that.”

I’m sorry, if there is anyting more than vague correlations amongst all that then you will need to point them out to me.
Shouldn’t be hard because I’m sure you have had the time to study it very closely.
My readers on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com will also be very interested to see what you come up with.

Sorry, Roger–I’m not going to do the work for you. If you actually want to know whether the IPCC reported any evidence for human attribution other than a weak correlation, you will have to read the chapter in the IPCC report with that in the title. If I were to do that for you, it would constitute what they call “feeding the trolls” in Internet parlance. Now, go troll somewhere else.

[…] which is an initial explanation that hasn’t yet been rigorously tested. And even though 97-98% of active climate scientists agree that humans are causing significant climate change, “there is not a consensus” on the […]

[…] the Oregon Petition got over 34,000 “scientists” to sign their statement. Of course, it turned out that less than 1% of those signers had a PhD in anything related to climatology, and they allowed […]

If the discipline one has a degree in is so important, where does that leave Stephen Schneider, godfather of global warming with a PhD in mechanical engineering? Asking climate researchers if they believe in AGW is like asking paranormal researchers if they believe in ghosts. The question here goes to the validity of the entire field of study. What we want to know whether there is a scientific basis to expect radical climate change. The way the survey question is phrased, it doesn’t address the central issue. If there was really a consensus, the pollsters would be asking survey questions that didn’t beat around the bush like this.

1. The discipline a person gets their PhD in indicates something about what they have been FORMALLY trained to investigate. If a person has a PhD in a climate-related field, it says they have put in the time to understand the basics of the field. Someone without the piece of paper may have also put in the time, but John Q Public has no way of knowing that UNLESS…

2. They have published extensively in the peer-reviewed literature in the field. That’s another good indicator. And by the way, I would put Stephen Schneider up against anyone you want to name by that standard.

3. What did you want the survey to say? Should it have used the word “radical”?

Peter Kauffner,
The problem with many climate deniers / pseudo-sceptics is that the majority score highly in the following:
a) No relevant qualifications
b) Little or no publication record in relevant ISI scientific journals
c) Take fossil-fuel funding Google name site:www.exxonsecrets.org
d) Repeatedly dissembling about the climate
e) Stretch their resume, like changing ‘professor of geography’ to ‘professor of climatology’
f) Introduce bogus political arguments. What has politics got to do with science? The only vote that counts is mother nature’s
g) Produce extremely suspect work where analysis of their ‘errors’ demonstrates a highly skewed ‘error’ distribution.
h) Draw conclusions that are unjustified by their so-called ‘research’
i) Make allegations against scientists that were false and refuse to retract them when shown to be false
j) Repeatedly utilise fallacious arguments. e.g. straw men arguments, which are then demolished
k) Publish utter tosh in non-standard journals and Energy & Environment
l) Write frequently in newspaper Op-Eds but not journals
m) Publish in journals with a seriously compromised peer-review process
n) Have gone emeritas
o) Repeatedly invokes arguments listed by http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
p) Where the references cited are seriously misrepresented (not only they don’t support the claims being made – they are completely at-odds with the claims made)
q) Are named in Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science http://tinyurl.com/wxd7x
r) Use arguments that rely upon invented quotes. Things never said or written.
s) Use arguments that rely upon mined-quotes and ellipses, where the quote is stripped of all context that totally alters its meaning.
t) Are linked to think-tanks funded by fossil-fuel interests or libertarian organisations or both. Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine http://tinyurl.com/Secret-Funding
u) etc.

Anyone who co-authors a paper with the notorious serial deceiver Fred Singer, has a LOT of explaining to do. A cynic might easily conclude that the ONLY REASON FOR INCLUDING SINGER AS A CO-AUTHOR was to boost the credibility of an INDUSTRY SHILL in the eyes of the public.

[…] BBC that has been building up Monckton as the spokesman for the contrarians. I showed clips in my video on consensus in climate science in which people like Rep. Joe Barton and radio host Alex Jones introduced […]

[…] his case “to the people” because he says his latest research has blown the lid off the consensus among climate scientists that humans are causing significant climate change. But the part of his research that has been […]